Slight correction, Jules. A stealth costs around 45 million a unit, not 3500 million. You're right about the cost of the aircraft carrier, but after the previous cutbacks, we have precious few of those to meet our defense and 'peacekeeping' needs.

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" President Bill Clinton, 1993.

Edited to add: I have a couple of easy predictions: 1)Our private contributions will vastly exceed public for this catastrophe. 2) We will need to employ our military for peacekeeping operations in the tsunami zones before this is over. 3) Our extensive and expensive military funding for those operations will not "count" in world opinion as humanitarian aid, but as 'war' funding (just like SEED and FSA are already).

Except, I never made such an assertion. I'm not claiming the Euro is better suited for anything at all. I merely used it as an example of another currency that has been considered in recent times as a possible replacement for the dollar.

The US could convert to yen, euros, pesos, or any other currency you could name (including the funny sounding asian ones who, to Americans, sound like some sort of porno reference....) and we'd still be the dominant economy in the world.

It's not the "money", it's the AMOUNT.

So, since you believe the US is "stingy" with respect to the response to this (and all other) global disasters, perhaps you can list the relative contributions of states such as Denmark?

Why? Its not a question of Denmark versus the USA. I happen to agree with Jan Egeland that ALL the rich country's are 'stingy'. And that includes Denmark.

But, since you've asked, you may be interested in these charts, originally posted by Eeyore, which show how 'generous' the richest nations are in relation to their GNI.

Those charts don't mean much. If you can find one that indicates the relative contribution of each nation, please let me know.

Throwing in miniscule counties that have populations, GDP's, and total economies less than the mid range US city doesn't prove a thing.

The bottom line is that the USA contributes the lion's share of "aid" to the world and that entire European Union falls far short of our contribution; that in spite of the fact that the US has been propping up EU economies through direct and indirect aid since 1945.

If you can show that my assertion is way off base, perhaps that's the area that we should debate?

Do you think Western nations in general and United States in particular give out enough in humanitarian aid?

“Enough” is such a relative term. The child who empties his piggy bank of change has the same good intentions as the celebrity who gives thousands, or the government who gives millions. Quantifying charity is somewhat loathsome.

Having said that, I will say it does highlight what a pitiful “leader” we have that he couldn’t have seen the reaction coming: this “leader”, who took 3 days before taking any sort of action at all, then to offer $15 million when he blows $177 million a day in Iraq. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out an already mistrustful world isn’t going to be impressed. He hasn’t even been inaugurated into his second term, and he has already blundered an opportunity to regain some of the world’s good will he lost because of Iraq.

Do we deserve the "stingy" slur?

When Pfizer ponies up more than twice as much as the US government's first and second offers in cash and medical supplies, Johnson & Johnson gives $2 million, and JP Morgan gives $3 million (source), it could certainly look that way. It’s hard to criticize charity of any sort, but it embarrasses me that my country had to be shamed into giving more, and making it look like it was given reluctantly. Charity cannot be forced; it is either given freely, or it isn’t truly charity.



It makes me sad that the rest of the world sees my country this way. I am also insulted that the leader of my country stands up there and tells me to give generously, when he had to have his arm twisted to do the same. I swear, the man could make a silk purse into a sow’s ear.

Your money? We all pay our taxes, and none of us choose directly how they will be spent. We rely on our representatives to do it for us, and you may not personally be affected by the Tsunami, but there are American citizens who are.

Even if there were not, I would hope that the majority of American citizens would be pleased with the idea that their money is going to help those who are suffering, but if you are not driven by compassion, perhaps you should be driven by the idea of public relations. The United States is has not been prosperous by being isolationist.

I hope you're not suggesting that the Bush administration has been "isolationist". They've been anything but.

Our aid will exceed all other countries in response to the disaster in spite of the rabid anti-American efforts to belittle Bush. We've also done more than all other nations COMBINED to promote freedom and democracy in a world threatened by Islamist facists that nobody seems to have the stomach (except Bush) to stand up to.

This sort of thinking is both HORRIBLY wrong and, quite honestly, horrendously insulting. While 9/11 was a tragedy, it is a tragedy that comes no where close to the proportions facing the world today. 3,041 people died (do I have that number right) in the Twin Towers. So far in Sumatra alone the death toll is well over 100,000 people. Globally (the Tsunami even killed 40 odd people in Somalia) the death toll will probably end up well over 200,000 people. Not only that, entire areas (many of which are already impoverished and have no ability to rebound) have been completely ruined. Not only are entire communities torn apart by the deaths, but roads are closed, farmland is ruined, tourist spots are going to be empty, buildings have been washed away, and livestock is gone. To compare the two demonstrates either a profound ignorance on your part regarding the 'costs' incurred, or that you simply don't value the life of 'foreigners' very much at all. Of course, I DID go out and do what I can after 9/11. I went out and donated blood at the Red Cross. As did others. I can't produce any exact amounts in terms of national contributions, but the fact is that the U.S. was (and is) the world's most powerful economy, struck by a military operation. That is far different than millions of people who have watched as their very family and lifestyle are washed away.



Care to prove it. I've yet to see any actual references or evidence in your post. Just a lot of this inflammed rhetoric. Canada is already donating $80 million. How much is the EU contributing? Japan? Why don't you tell us what the numbers are before you pass judgement on them? You might find that your posts are better received with a stronger foundation.

To be honest, I don't think that the U.S. deserved Jan Engelund's criticism, but the literal meaning of stingy is "to be reluctant to give money," and at the very least the U.S. government qualifies when compared to other nations. That being said, many nations are stingy. As I've said before (and will say again) we are measured not in how much we contribute, but in how much we contribute in relation to how much we are capable of giving.

I have an appointment to donate platelets today. However, my parents recently donated $100 to the Kidney Foundation of Canada (there's a history of polycystic kidneys in my family). However, their income combined is over $100k. My income is barely enough to pay my tuition. So am I stingy because I don't donate cash, or generous because I donate something that I can afford, when my parents only donate a pittance of what they are capable? Using your rational Lordhelmet, I'm cheap and heartless and my parents are philanthropists.

I'll just ignore your anti-American cheap shot in the first section, eh?

I can't "prove" that we'll exceed the donations by every other country in response to this natural disaster because the money hasn't been allocated yet.

$80M by Canada. I predict that the state of Michigan in the USA will donate more than your entire country.

I also predict that when the accounting is done, the contribution by the US citizens and US government will exceed all other countries COMBINED and I predict that will not stop the endless infantile cheap shots at my country and our government.

A little Freudian misspeak? So, in your mind, any "effort to belittle Bush" (read: critique) is anti-American?



Freedom is not promoted on tips of bayonets. Maybe that's why our "seeds of freedom", planted in that way, are struggling to take hold.

Nothing Freudian about me. I guarantee it. The efforts to belittle Bush are infantile, reactionary, and not based on the facts. It's the result of the left lashing out emotionally and without reason or logic.

Freedom is not promoted on the tips of bayonets? Right.

War never solved anything right?

Except, defeating facsism, naziism, communism, slavery, and creating our country in the first place.

The pen is not mightier than the sword. If you think so, go to your next sword fight carrying your Mont Blanc. Good luck.